Rescissions Act of 2025

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before we even get to the rescissions, let's be really, really honest about what is going on here. This isn't just a debate about cuts, because in this rule, Republican leadership snuck in a rewrite of their big, ugly bill.

Yes, that is right. A vote on this rule is effectively a revote on their reconciliation package, a do-over. It is a

desperate attempt by Republican leadership to fix the mess they made with their awful tax scam.

Now, when they rushed it through in the middle of the night, they included provisions that aren't even allowed under the Senate's reconciliation rules. Moreover, instead of coming clean and holding a straightforward vote on the corrections, they are trying to bury it in this rule for the DOGE rescissions package, hoping that nobody will notice. Think of it like a Trojan Horse, Mr. Speaker.

Let's be clear: The rescissions could be brought to the floor anytime. You heard that right, Mr. Speaker, they could be brought to the floor anytime. They are privileged. Speaker Johnson doesn't need this rule to move them. The only reason these things are being tied together is to trick certain Republicans into voting for a bill that they have already said they regret.

Now, it should be said that Republicans have an opportunity right now to change the bill before it goes to the Senate. Last night, in the Rules Committee, we could have voted to strip out the State artificial intelligence moratorium for the reconciliation bill, or we could have dropped the controversial language on contempt that some Republican Members objected to.

Nonetheless, Republican leadership deliberately decided not to do any of that. They decided that the very stuff their members are concerned about doesn't matter and, instead, are entirely leaving changes up to the Senate, as if we had no power or influence here in this House.

As the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said herself last night during the meeting: ``Any Member who has any regrets about his or her vote on the first bill has the opportunity to vote `no' on the rule tomorrow.''

She didn't recommend a ``no'' vote, but she pointed out the choice that Members have.

I agree with her. Members have a choice here. Those who didn't like this bill have a choice to stop it right here in this House.

So to all of the Republicans who said they regret voting ``yes'' for this reconciliation bill, especially those who complained about how much this will add trillions to the deficit and debt: This is your chance for a redo. This is your chance for a redo. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' here to stop this big, ugly bill from moving to the Senate. If Republicans have the courage of their convictions, then they will vote ``no.''

While Republican leadership is busy playing procedural games trying to slip this through, let's talk about what they are attaching this rewrite to.

The Republican rescission package is based on a scam, a con job, and a grift. This is not about actual savings, nor is it about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. This is based on cementing stupid, preposterous, and self-defeating DOGE cuts into law. These are DOGE cuts that, I might add, have already illegally been in place for months when the Trump administration wreaked havoc on our government systems by freezing critical funding.

From day one, DOGE has been one big excuse to reward Trump's wealthy donors, gut public services, and funnel resources away from programs that help ordinary people and into the pockets of the wealthy and well- connected.

Let's not forget: This is the same DOGE review that cut off funding to USDA bird flu experts in the middle of a bird flu outbreak. They sent pink slips to the people who secure our nuclear warheads. They gutted the National Weather Service so badly that right now we might not have enough meteorologists to warn communities about tornadoes and hurricanes.

DOGE was a total, complete failure, and now Republicans want to lock their disastrous cuts into law?

Come on. That is insane. That is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, look at what these cuts are targeting: funding for global health, clean water, food security, and democracy programs; funding for UNICEF and the World Food Program; funding for diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and for world peace, for Christ's sake.

People think our foreign budget is some huge, massive thing. We are talking about something that is 1 percent of our budget. So, please, do not come down here and pretend as if this is a serious attempt to cut funding.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to go after waste and save taxpayer money, then count me in. Count me in. I wish my Republican friends would express some concern about the fact that their President is spending maybe up to $40 million for a parade of military tanks on his birthday.

Really?

We are cutting money to save lives in this rescission package, but $40 million-plus is no big deal, as long as Donald Trump is happy.

We should start with the Pentagon if we are serious about getting after waste, fraud, and abuse. The Pentagon, by the way, has never, ever passed an audit. They have never passed an audit.

Let's look at tax breaks for Big Oil. We can't do that because they write big checks.

Let's go after the loopholes for billionaires. Let's end the corporate giveaways.

No. No. No. Republicans don't want to touch any of those things.

Meanwhile, the cuts in this rescission package hurt America. They weaken our leverage around the world. They pull back critical funding for our allies. They strip away tools we use to prevent conflict and promote stability. These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world.

At a time when China, Russia, and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence, this bill says: Go right ahead. This is China's dream come true, the U.S. pulling back our soft power from around the world.

This is self-sabotage masquerading as savings, and it is not even a lot of money. These slivers of our Federal budget, these dollars that generate enormous return by keeping people alive and preventing crises before they happen that is what this money does. That is what Republicans are cutting.

This isn't just penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Speaker. It is like saving money by burning down your house so you don't have to pay for the heat.

I would like to think that America's greatness comes from our humanity. It is clear Republicans believe that America's greatness is found in our inhumanity and in cruelty and callousness. I believe everyone can agree that is a truly dark, dangerous, and morally bankrupt place to govern from.

The American people deserve better than this. They deserve smarter than this. They deserve a government that prioritizes what works, not what flatters the egos of billionaires hopped up on ketamine.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace, and the underlying bill is a disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain this again because I don't know why this is such a tough concept for my Republican colleagues to understand.

Two things can be true. These Republican DOGE cuts can be incredibly cruel, which they are, and at the same time mathematically insignificant compared to the massive trillions of dollars that Republicans are adding to the deficit and the debt because of their reconciliation bill. So two things can be true. I don't think that is that hard for the American people to understand.

Mr. Speaker, as we have made clear time and time again, the big, ugly GOP tax scam is set to add $3 trillion to the deficit, $3 trillion. To be clear, that isn't me saying that. That is the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO.

It isn't just CBO. Every other reputable independent analysis of the bill, including the Joint Committee on Taxation, Yale Budget Lab, and Penn Wharton Budget Model came to the same conclusion. Even the right- leaning Tax Foundation agrees that this bill explodes the deficit, explodes it.

Yet, here we are with Republicans patting themselves on the back over the Trump-DOGE rescission package, a package that in all reality barely makes a dent in the very debt that they ballooned.

Since they want to talk about the debt, let's talk about the debt. I want the American people to take a look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. I want the American people to look at this chart. The red indicates the $3 trillion that Trump's big, ugly bill will add to the deficit. Then we see this tiny, little blue sliver. Thank God, I am wearing my bifocals here. I can barely see it. That little, tiny blue sliver-- again, you might need a magnifying glass to see it--that is the $9.4 billion that the Republicans are trying to save through these rescissions.

To break that down a little bit more, the $3 trillion deficit increase in the GOP tax scam is 320 times bigger than the $9.4 billion that Republicans are trying to rescind through these DOGE cuts.

The real kicker here is that under their GOP tax scam, CBO says that the top 5 percent of earners will get $1.6 trillion in total tax cuts. That is 170 times bigger than the $9.4 billion Republicans want to rescind.

Republicans are cutting $9.4 billion in Federal spending so they can try and justify the trillions and trillions of dollars they plan to add to the debt so they can deliver massive tax cuts to their billionaire friends.

So these rescissions, they are not even a drop in the bucket. They are a drop in the ocean compared to the multitrillion-dollar deficit- busting bill that Republicans are trying to jam through.

Just because the sliver on this chart seems small doesn't mean these Republican rescissions are not harmful. Republicans want to cut $900 million from global health programs, including $400 million for PEPFAR, an overwhelmingly bipartisan program created by President George W. Bush to combat HIV. This program has saved more than 26 million lives over the past 28 years.

That is not fraud, waste, or abuse. That is a big deal. That is something we should be proud of. Not properly funding PEPFAR means people will literally die. That is not hyperbole. It is just the truth. In fact, because DOGE and the Trump administration illegally suspended PEPFAR already earlier this year, tens of thousands of people have already died, including thousands of children. It is despicable. They want to cut $2.5 billion in development assistance that our allies and partners use to build schools, help farmers grow food, fund clean water projects, and combat poverty. They want to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for Ukraine and our allies at the border of Russia. They want to completely eliminate Federal funding for public TV and radio, which are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions of American households, particularly in rural areas. I don't know what my colleagues have against rural areas, but those areas will be particularly hard hit by those cuts.

It is important to note, once again, that many of these rescissions, especially to foreign aid, have already started to hurt and even kill people. That is because the administration illegally froze USAID programs, which has threatened the lives of millions of people who rely on this funding to prevent or treat disease, afford food, and access to clean water.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record an article by the Associated Press titled: ``Children die as USAID aid cuts snap a lifeline for the world's most malnourished.''

Mr. Speaker, according to the Boston University School of Public Health--and listen to this--more than 50,000 adults and 6,000 infants have died of HIV due to the disruption of PEPFAR. People are already dying. More than 29,000 children have died of malaria, and 25,000 people have died of tuberculosis because the Trump administration froze funding.

Republicans want to rubberstamp the Trump administration's illegal funding freeze into law, and they claim that they are reining in the debt. Well, as we can see, Mr. Speaker, that is a huge load of garbage.

This rescissions package is a moral failure masquerading as fiscal responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin after that. The gentleman talked about $100,000 here and $1 million there but not a word about the $3 trillion added to the deficit because of the big, ugly bill that he and Republicans voted for and supported. There was not a word about all that is going to be added to the debt.

Maybe the gentleman forgot this, but I am looking at a FOX News story here when the gentleman referred to the $9.4 billion as a teardrop in the ocean when he was interviewed. I don't know what happened, but somehow the gentleman couldn't bring himself to talk about the $3 trillion that Republicans are adding to the debt.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up amendment No. 1 to H.R. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman), which would block Republicans from zeroing out Federal funding that Congress has already appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Public TV and radio are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions of households across America and are particularly important in rural areas, where public stations are often the only source of local news.

This is a $1.1 billion cut, Mr. Speaker. Let's compare that to the big, ugly Republican reconciliation bill, which adds $3 trillion to the deficit and--get this--includes a provision that Republicans have been bragging about that removes a tax on gun silencers, which has been on the books for a century.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the JCT, this new tax break on silencers alone will increase our Nation's deficit by $1.5 billion. That is more than the $1.1 billion Republicans are ``saving'' by eliminating all funding for public TV and radio.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the American people and my Republican colleagues: Is this whole tradeoff worth it? Public broadcasting in exchange for cheaper gun silencers? I mean, really? Unless you are an assassin or a hit man, I hope the answer is a resounding ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, wow, that is something.

We were trying to keep up with the gentleman as he was ticking off all the initiatives that he doesn't like, and we were looking at these accounts. I think they all added up to $23.5 million. I don't know about some of the programs that the gentleman talked about. I am happy to look into them.

He came up with $23.5 million in programs that he doesn't like. I just want my friends to understand that that is half of what Donald Trump is going to spend on his 1-day parade on Saturday. That is half. I mean, give me a break.

Then, the gentleman said that the CBO doesn't assume a growth rate. Not only did the CBO take into account the growth rate, but so did every other think tank that did a budget analysis on the great big, ugly bill that Republicans passed.

I should also say to the gentleman and to the gentlewoman that many of these programs have already been halted illegally by the Trump administration.

Just for the record, it is estimated that over 107,000 adults have died as a result of the denial of funds, along with over 224,000 children.

I am ashamed that our government has pulled funding for programs that save people's lives. Maybe my friends think that is fraud, waste, and abuse. I don't.

People are already dying. People are already dying because the Trump administration has illegally halted funding from many of these programs, just withholding the money from USAID. I am happy to share with them the statistics.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out for my colleagues that the big, ugly way in which Republicans have advanced this big, ugly bill is just the tip of the iceberg.

Last Congress, the Republican majority presided over the most unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history. What an achievement. I know they are all proud.

Republicans shattered their own record by issuing 115 closed rules, meaning 115 times when the House could not debate a single amendment on the House floor.

Did they learn anything from being the most unproductive Congress in the history? Of course they didn't.

In just 5 months, the Republicans have racked up over 50 closed rules. More than 90 percent of the bills they bring up have no amendments, no discussion, no input. It is just take or leave it.

What are we even doing here? Republican leadership has blocked over 800 amendments, and we have yet to see a single bipartisan amendment make it to the House floor this year, not even one.

Only 14 amendments have been selected by Republican leadership to be debated across just four bills. That is a 98 percent rejection rate. They block 98 out of 100 ideas they receive.

Mr. Aderholt, who was testifying before the Rules Committee said: Oh, this rescissions bill gives us an opportunity to vote up or down on whether we want to support public broadcasting. The bottom line is, no, it doesn't because we are not having separate votes. You have to take the whole package or leave it. We can't even vote on the individual cuts that are being made a part of this rescissions package.

Republicans have blocked debate on amendments that would help States protect against deadly wildfires and post-disaster recovery. They blocked amendments that would support new mothers and infants impacted by substance use. They blocked amendments to protect SNAP and Medicaid for millions of Americans.

Really?

It is no wonder why no one likes Congress. Republicans are happy to debate trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all.

Mr. Speaker, here is the kicker: At this point in our majority, Democrats gave Republicans more chances to debate their ideas than their own leaders do.

In 5 months, only 6 of the 220 Republicans in this Chamber have had amendments made in order. I mean, that means over 97 percent of Republicans have not had a single amendment debated.

Are my Republican colleagues proud of being excluded from the legislative process?

Mr. Speaker, I say, again, to the gentleman from Texas who just spoke, I am sorry. Don't lecture us about deficits when you voted for a bill that added $3 trillion to the deficit.

It is shameful. The so-called budget hawks around here talk a tough game, and then they cave. We did have a debate in the Rules Committee about this last night, but the gentleman was absent.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Every major organization that does budget analysis says that they are going to add trillions to the debt. The only people who don't are the gentlewoman from North Carolina. I am sorry. I didn't know that you do independent budget analyses, but every other one does.

There is one Republican in this House who is not afraid of Mr. Trump and that is Mr. Massie.

Let me read a couple of tweets that he posted. He writes: ``Why didn't Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act make tax cuts permanent?

``Because the impact of the tax cuts on debt after 2025 was understood by them to be too great. Now they're employing new math to claim that renewing the tax cuts, without cutting spending, won't impact debt.''

He writes: ``Hidden inside of a resolution we will vote on today to bring rescissions to the floor is an order to pass H. Res. 492 without a vote. H. Res. 492 changes the text of the BBB after it already passed the House. Sneaky.''

Can we at least be honest about what is happening here?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk today about tightening belts and making tough choices. This bill doesn't make tough choices. It makes stupid choices.

These rescissions would gut PEPFAR, a program that saved millions of lives by preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. It would slash funding for malaria prevention, for maternal and child health, for clean water, and for food assistance.

These programs are not giveaways. This money isn't a handout. These are smart, strategic investments that make Americans safer and save this government money down the road. Every dollar we spend on global health, on diplomacy, on humanitarian aid can save $10, $100, even $1,000 later by preventing conflict, disease outbreaks, refugee crises, and wars.

This bill eliminates those smart investments. It strips away those tools. It tells the world at a time when it is desperate for American leadership that we are walking away. It will let China, Russia, and Iran fill the power vacuum that we leave behind, and for what?

All so Republicans can say they cut spending while they protect billions in tax breaks for Big Oil and billionaire donors.

Let's be clear: This bill isn't serious about fiscal responsibility. If it were, there would be a rescissions package for the Pentagon. We would be debating clawbacks for defense contractors who charge $10,000 for a toilet seat. We would be looking at whether Elon Musk's companies should be getting massive government subsidies, but no.

The party of billionaires would rather defund ``Sesame Street.'' They would rather go after Elmo, and they would rather go after programs that help save lives.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is about Trump's military parade, too. The Army estimates it can cost between $25 to $40 million.

Let's do the math. We are going to kill disaster relief, gut UNICEF, and stop investing in global AIDS prevention. Yet we are fine with Donald Trump throwing himself a birthday party with tanks and missiles in the streets like it is North Korea.

What the hell are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? This is why people don't trust

government. If we want to be serious about budgeting, fine. Let's be serious. Let's look at where the waste, fraud, and abuse runs rampant.

Let's audit the Pentagon. Let's go after corporate welfare and Big Oil handouts. Let's close the loopholes that let billionaires pay zero in taxes. But let's not pretend this bill is about any of that.

This bill is a fraud and a con job. America deserves better. The world needs better. This is a revote on the reconciliation bill.

Vote ``no'' if you are against gutting Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP.

The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Vote ``no'' if you oppose $3 trillion----

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.

Although Bitcoin has been around for over 15 years, cryptocurrencies and related decentralized financial products have exploded in the past few years. Many Americans now own cryptocurrencies, and the industry has seen significant growth.

At the same time, our laws have not kept up with these novel crypto products, and there is wide agreement that Congress must update our laws to appropriately account for crypto assets. However, today's bills are not the answer to that problem.

The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts are bad legislation. They are industry- written bills that give the crypto industry everything it wants at the expense of retail investors, consumers, and the overall health of our financial system. These bills are products of the D.C. swamp that so many of our colleagues usually condemn.

Mr. Speaker, every time our Republican colleagues write a finance bill, it leaves us less safe and more prone to financial crisis. We saw the very real consequences of this when Silicon Valley Bank failed in 2023. That failure was the direct result of Republican legislation that exempted Silicon Valley Bank from Dodd-Frank Act regulations.

GOP proponents of that bill had argued, without evidence, that Dodd- Frank was too onerous and that big banks needed regulatory relief, but it only took a couple of years for their disastrous deregulatory agenda to lead exactly where we all knew it would, with billions of dollars of customer deposits evaporating overnight and with the Federal Government bailing out the bank's uninsured depositors.

This time, Republicans are at it again with two bills that will create a weak and ineffective regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins,

allowing exchanges and insurers to continue risky, fraudulent, and illegal practices with limited oversight by the SEC or Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

These bills give the crypto industry exactly what it wants. They get the illusion of a real regulatory regime and the legitimacy that would bestow. They get weak rules that can be exploited and manipulated for financial gain, and they get enforcement mechanisms that are so meager and underfunded that they won't deter bad actors.

We have seen what deregulation gets us. It got us the 2008 financial crisis. It gets us bankruptcies and bailouts, and it ultimately leaves hardworking Americans holding the bag while CEOs get golden parachutes.

It is not like we are talking about deregulating some benign financial product. Crypto stands out as a uniquely risky asset. From the invention of bitcoin until now, the primary demonstrated uses for cryptocurrencies have been speculation, fraud, and money laundering.

You can't really use crypto to buy anything. The coins themselves aren't backed by any profits, assets, or other tangible property. While we have been hearing about all the wonders of the blockchain for over a decade, shockingly few companies actually use it in a way that is essential to their business.

In practice, the main real-life-use case for crypto is money laundering. Crypto is used by Mexican cartels to launder their proceeds from drugs trafficked into the United States. Terrorist organizations fund their operations with crypto, and countries like North Korea use cryptocurrencies to avoid U.S. sanctions and fund their nuclear weapons programs.

In fact, bitcoin and Tether are the payment methods of choice for the fentanyl manufacturers in China that supply the Mexican cartels, as well as other fentanyl traffickers inside the United States. These criminal organizations rely on crypto, and the legislation under consideration today will not disrupt that illegal commerce.

The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts will not do anything to prevent crypto from being used to break our laws or fund fentanyl deaths and senior fraud. These bills do not provide any meaningful regulations to ensure that issuers and exchanges fully comply with anti-money laundering laws. Add to this that cryptocurrencies are used to facilitate billions of dollars' worth of fraud against Americans each year. This fraud comes in the form of scams, especially those targeting seniors, where fraudsters trick people into purchasing fake crypto products and then run off with the money, leaving the seniors with no recourse.

Then there is the institutional fraud, the fraud that comes from the crypto companies themselves. Here we also have a long list of examples, the most notable being the fall and bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which incorporated itself in The Bahamas to avoid American regulatory scrutiny, gambled with customer funds, and ultimately left its customers penniless because of fraudulent business practices.

There is no other way around it. The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts will not stop these types of fraud from happening, and they will leave regular investors on the hook if they are victims of fraud.

The other glaring omission in these bills is they do nothing to stop the abuse of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins as tools for bribery and influence peddling. As President Trump and his allies have demonstrated on a daily basis, any politician can issue a crypto asset, own the majority of tokens, and then anyone who wants to buy that politician's attention or votes can just invest in the asset. There is no oversight or disclosure requirement. There is deniability on both sides of the transaction. Any person, any foreign country can bribe and buy politicians through cryptocurrency like this. Those who have purchased such coins have been open about their motivations for doing so.

Right before his inauguration, President Trump issued his own coin, the Trump coin, for which he is the majority owner. Millions of dollars of questionable funds, including funds from foreigners and foreign governments, have flowed into this coin, as well as his companies, Trump Media and World Liberty Financial.

All in all, it is estimated that President Trump has netted $1 billion from those crypto schemes, taking advantage of the Office of the President to enrich him and his family.

During the 2024 election, crypto companies donated millions of dollars to elect the President. After he was elected, they donated millions more to his inaugural committee. It is notable that in his first 6 months in office, Trump has dismantled all the regulators that oversee the financial and crypto industries, dropped criminal charges and investigations against various crypto companies, pardoned a crypto exchange that pleaded guilty to abetting money laundering, and pardoned the former owner of the Silk Road who was responsible for selling hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of drugs on the deep web.

Apparently, anyone who seeks to buy influence in this White House simply has to find one of the President's companies or meme coins and make a sizable investment. Emiratis and Saudis are investing in Trump's crypto assets to curry favor. People looking for pardons, dismissals, or preferential regulatory treatment are taking advantage of the Trump crypto scheme. Lawyers and lobbyists are advertising to clients that they can buy a pardon for the right price. It is easily the biggest potential corruption scandal in our Nation's Presidential history.

If there is any crypto regulation we need right now, it is a bright- line prohibition on any elected official profiting off a crypto asset.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which paved the way for corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money in our elections. Because of this ruling, anyone, for the right price, can buy their preferred outcomes in our elections and in Congress. One need look no further than Elon Musk and the crypto bills that we are considering today to see the impact of the Citizens United decision.

We all know about the millions that Musk poured into the Trump campaign and the White House access he was granted before their abrupt split recently, but the crypto industry also spent a lot of money. It spent money to make these bills happen.

Over the past few years, the crypto industry has emerged as one of the biggest and most aggressive political spenders in American politics. In the 2024 election, crypto emerged as the biggest corporate spender, accounting for nearly half of all the corporate money spent. Crypto outspent every other business lobby by tens of millions of dollars.

While the crypto industry's political spending is enormous, what really sets it apart is the brazenness with which the industry buys influence in Washington. Usually, it is hard to exactly pinpoint a direct relationship between political spending and outcomes, but crypto spending is so in your face that we can actually put a price on these bills.

All in all, the CLARITY and GENIUS Acts cost the crypto industry about $245 million, and that is a conservative figure. That is just the money spent on 2024 campaigns. If you count money spent to hire expensive lobbyists to come to Congress and ply Representatives with industry talking points, the number is even higher.

Crypto's $245 million was spent supporting candidates who backed the industry and defeating candidates who did not. Crypto got a good return on its investment. In the overwhelming majority of races that crypto principals invested in, they got their preferred candidate. Now crypto companies have been able to write their own regulations to ensure they won't face serious scrutiny or oversight, meaning that fraud and money laundering will continue unabated, and investors will be on the hook when the next crypto crisis happens.

Fifteen years after the Citizens United decision, these bills are the direct result. Crypto is a textbook example of the consequences of that decision. The question before us today is, how should cryptocurrencies be regulated? The answer we are getting is with regulations provided by the crypto industry itself.

Fifteen years later, Citizens United has been an unmitigated disaster for

our country. Unlimited spending in politics has corroded our democracy. It has bred cynicism and nihilism in the political process. It has made Americans feel disenfranchised and powerless. It says to every American, your voice doesn't count unless you can pay to play.

Mr. Speaker, we have a political system where any company or any rich person can pay for advertisements, pay for lobbyists, donate to campaigns and PACs and super-PACs, all to buy influence and get their desired outcomes from Congress or the White House.

Time and time again, in every sector of our economy, corporations and the rich have won in Congress, in the courts, in the rulemaking process, and even in decisionmaking by enforcement agencies.

We see the consequences of Citizens United everywhere we turn. It is the reason corporations can screw over workers and consumers with no penalty.

It is why every part of the economy is monopolized by two or three companies that sell poor products and give bad service. It is why we are diving headfirst into a global climate crisis and doing nothing about it.

It is why every time someone runs for office on a platform of putting people over profits, they have to endure attacks from super-PACs supported by billionaires or business interests. Our democracy will remain imperiled so long as the mega-rich can buy influence, votes, and elections.

If anyone was unsure of the consequences posed by Citizens United in 2010, it is now clear, beyond any doubt, that the decision was an abject failure for the country. We have to overturn Citizens United, get dark money out of politics, and make sure our government is accountable to voters and not donors.

To my colleagues here in the House, we don't need to end campaign spending for Members of Congress to do the right thing. Integrity doesn't require authorizing legislation. We cannot allow big money donors to buy or bully Congress. We need to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for consideration of the fiscal year 2026 Defense appropriations bill. Since taking the majority in the House, Republicans have unfortunately abandoned any pretense of bipartisan compromise to promote our national security by loading every defense bill with radical, rightwing policy riders. These riders have turned what was once a rare area of bipartisan consensus into yet another partisan divide.

This time around, Republicans have loaded the national defense bill with provisions to prevent female servicemembers from accessing reproductive healthcare. They have given a green light to discrimination against LGBTQ servicemembers.

This bill does nothing to address the gross mismanagement of the Pentagon by Pete Hegseth, a man who has leaked classified intelligence, who spends more time in front of his Pentagon makeup mirror and doing press stunts than effectively managing the Armed Forces, and who has prioritized support for bigotry and weird cultural war obsessions like changing the pictures on the Pentagon's website and renaming military bases after Confederate icons.

When this bill is combined with the money spent by Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the United States is on track to spend over $1 trillion on defense. Every year, we spend more and more on defense. It is not clear that taxpayers are getting a good deal.

After years of consolidation and lax antitrust enforcement, the defense industry has ossified around five major prime contractors, each with a degree of specialization. That means only two or three companies ever compete for major contracts.

The consequences of this consolidation can be found across the defense industrial base. We don't make enough of the weapons and platforms that we need. Production for major platforms is often beset by delays and cost overruns. We spend billions on studies and research programs that don't lead anywhere. Production timelines are always being extended. Delivery times are delayed, and per-unit costs are increased.

In the face of these glaring business inefficiencies, Congress and the Pentagon always give the contractors what they ask for and ask for very little in return.

We need to replenish our weapons stockpiles. We need to quickly field next-generation military assets like the Columbia submarine and the B- 21 Raider. We need to bolster supply chains that support this production. We need to ensure that the Nation has the industrial capacity to respond to a sustained major conflict anywhere in the world.

In order for us to achieve these goals, meet our national security needs, and support our servicemembers, Congress needs to perform real oversight over the Pentagon and defense contractors.

In my time in Congress, I have supported multiple efforts to require the Pentagon to perform a clean audit with tangible enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. In each case, these efforts haven't garnered the votes for passage because at the end of the day, this body has not been willing to hold the Pentagon and defense industry's feet to the fire.

The Pentagon has failed to complete seven audits in a row. That is seven. Until the Pentagon faces real consequences for being unable to account for the billions of taxpayer dollars it spends every year and failing to comply with congressional oversight, we will never have accountability.

At a time when our Republicans' quest to root out waste, fraud, and abuse has led them to slash funding for American's healthcare and hunger relief, it is astonishing they are willing to write yet another blank check to the Department of Defense with no questions asked, despite growing evidence of cost overruns, mismanagement, and more.

At the end of the day, I want our servicemembers to have every single advantage over our adversaries. I want them to have all the tools, platforms, resources, and weapons systems we can provide. I don't want taxpayers to get a bad deal. I don't want to waste money on overpriced defense contracts that overpromise and underdeliver.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order amendment No. 50 to H.R. 3633, offered by Representative Khanna, which requires the Attorney General to preserve and release any records related to Jeffrey Epstein.

I applaud my colleagues, Representative Veasey and Khanna, for their work to release the Epstein files. I strongly support these efforts and the release of the files.

Last night, at the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected an amendment that would have required the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files, multiple criminal investigations which allegedly documented trafficking of young women and girls by Jeffrey Epstein, a sex offender and financier with whom the President often socialized.

For years, the President and those in his orbit, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, alleged that prior administrations had covered up the identities of the rich and powerful people to whom Epstein had trafficked the girls and the facts surrounding his allegedly suspicious death.

They came into office pledging to seek accountability for the horrific crimes by revealing Epstein's client list and other information, but recently backtracked and refused to release any further information.

There appear to be only two explanations for this about-face. Either the Epstein files did not contain the explosive information that Trump and his allies claimed during his campaign, or this administration is the one covering up what is in the files.

Last night, all the Republicans on the Rules Committee except one voted against releasing the files.

Why would they try to prevent the truth about Epstein's abuse and those he enabled from coming out? That is anybody's guess.

With this previous question, the entire Republican Conference has the opportunity to correct that mistake. They can vote today to release the Epstein files.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is the sponsor of the resolution directing the Trump administration to release the Epstein files to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about what Congress should be considering, and my amendment would simply allow Congress to express its will with respect to the release of the Epstein files. This is something our Republican colleagues and certainly key members of the Trump administration have been talking about for years until their recent about-face.

Congress can express its will. We would like to have it put up for a vote. It doesn't block any votes on the crypto bills or the Defense Department funding.

We think that the administration should release these files. It really is a little confusing, I think, why suddenly our Republican colleagues are blocking this, but perhaps it was a mistake. At least one Republican voted with Democrats last night to release the files, so this would just give all of our colleagues the opportunity to say what they have been saying for so many years, that the Epstein files should be released.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am not sure what the gentleman from Georgia is talking about when he says that my amendment is offered as a product of radical leftists. I know that it is rare in D.C., but this amendment actually has broad bipartisan support, from the far right, from the far left, and from the middle.

We just want to release the Epstein files. That is why we have offered the amendment, and this body has the opportunity to vote on it.

I don't understand why my Republican colleagues are suddenly so adamant about throwing up procedural hurdles to have the Epstein files released.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules, my Democratic colleagues and I offered multiple amendments to try to improve the crypto bills.

We offered amendments to prevent the President and his closest relatives from profiting off of crypto while he is in office. We offered amendments to protect investors and consumers and allow the kind of government oversight that is needed to protect our economy.

All of these amendments were rejected by committee Republicans.

Last night, as we discussed the Defense spending bill, we also pressed Republicans on how military families will be impacted by the Medicaid cuts in Republicans' big, ugly bill.

About 850,000 military families on TRICARE also receive healthcare through Medicaid, particularly children with special needs. Those families may now see their health benefits cut or taken away as a result of the big, ugly bill. That issue was not addressed in the Defense spending bill.

Our Republican colleagues didn't want to hear it, and I doubt we will be able to prevent them from proceeding with this misguided crypto legislation today.

Yet, I will say this: If these bills become law, we can predict many more crypto scandals and crises and money laundering. A lot of people will lose a lot of money, and no one will face accountability for taking advantage of retail investors. I hope that day doesn't come, but it is bills like this that will determine the future of our financial system.

Do we want a system that promotes speculation, bubbles, Ponzi schemes, and frauds or one that promotes investment in innovative and productive businesses that grow the real economy in ways that benefit all Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PQ and rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

My colleagues from Wisconsin and Michigan have spoken to the destructive nature of this rescission because of the programs that will be canceled midstream.

I have seen, so often, the power of our international aid programs in assisting in nutrition and fighting tuberculosis and malaria and AIDS across the world. But what many may not understand is that the small fraction--less than one-third of 1 percent--that we spend on those programs has an incredible yield not just in doing good works around the world, but have been doing good for America because of relationships that are forged through those programs. The respect that is forged through those programs comes back to benefit us in all kinds of cooperation on a huge range of diplomatic goals--be they economic; be they trade; be they issues of national security.

That is, in fact, what is referred to as ``soft power,'' and soft power is at risk with this strategy of canceling these programs.

I think about rural Oregon, where so often the warnings on floods or fires is broadcast over the public radio system, and all kinds of different channels have different programs that people become quite attached to. So there are simply good humor programs that are fun to listen to, and others are good music programs. But a lot of it is good news programs--things deeply appreciated throughout the State but often harder to access in rural Oregon. So I am concerned about this concerted attack on rural America.

First, my colleagues across the aisle say: We are going to make it very, very hard for people in rural America to get healthcare if they are on Medicaid. And then, without Medicaid financing and paying for services, you lose an entire hospital or you lose an entire clinic. The whole rural community is profoundly damaged because everyone's healthcare is affected. An attack on rural America continues through this bill.

But what I really want to talk about now is to give a sense of how this bill is an attack on the separations of power that we all here in the Senate have taken a constitutional oath to defend.

When I first came to Congress as an intern for Senator Hatfield, we were celebrating our 200th anniversary. That is so long ago, 49 years ago. And Senator Hatfield had a saying about appropriators, and that was that appropriators--that is, those Members of the Senate who served on the spending committee--they were first appropriators, and then they were Republicans or Democrats. That is how strongly they felt about their shared responsibility to manage the power of the purse.

The power of the purse--article I, section 9, of the Constitution says:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.

And here is the thing. The Congress is vested with that power, but when you decide how to spend money, you are really talking about your values. So those who serve on the Appropriations Committee were doing their best to enact the values of our country, be they investment in healthcare, in housing, in education; investments that created good- paying jobs, investments that helped small communities thrive, investments that helped build infrastructure across the country. That was the responsibility that was so cherished.

And there was a term for those who chaired the 12 subcommittees on Appropriations, and that term--the colloquial term--was that they were the Senate's ``cardinals.'' It was taken from the Catholic Church, where cardinals helped steer the church on the right path. And the cardinals of the Senate had the responsibility of steering our Nation, through our spending decisions, on the right path for the people of America.

This is, in fact, a key part of government by and for the people: that shared responsibility to spend that money wisely. But even in the early years that I was here in the Senate, we were starting to see signs of the breakdown of that relationship.

In the last conversation I had with Senator Hatfield before he passed away, he said: What happened to the Appropriations Committee?

Now, Senator Hatfield was a Republican, and he had been chair of the Appropriations Committee. And he said: I worked so closely with Dan Inouye of Hawaii, and I worked so closely with Patty Murray of Washington. What has happened to that collaboration?

That was several years ago. But as we have watched, over time, some significant things are happening that we should understand as Senators. In the not so distant past, you have tried to have a fair allocation of revenue laws that raised money, and then, as you filled the Treasury, the question became: How shall we spend it?

So the responsibility shifted from the Finance Committee to the Appropriations Committee. But, over time, it has become more and more popular to spend money for programs through tax credits and deductions. So much of the spending that was in the Appropriations Committee has shifted to the Finance Committee. And then it became more and more popular to shift discretionary spending, over which the Appropriations Committee has control, into mandatory spending. If it is mandatory, it is not a decision decided by the appropriators.

And then, on top of all that, we started to build up more and more national debt, and so all the money that went to interest on that debt is money unavailable to be spent on basic programs of healthcare, housing, education, investments that create good-paying jobs across America, infrastructure, security. That money isn't so available because it is tied up paying for interest.

So these trends are changing the role of those Senate cardinals--the chairs and the ranking members of the subcommittees who help guide us in the 12 different sections of spending. And, I will say, that problem of the debt growing, that is very significant.

Back in 1974, Democrats and Republicans came together and said: Let's have an architecture to ensure that we are very responsible and don't run up massive debt. We will have a filibuster-free pathway for one purpose, and that is to reduce deficits--only to reduce deficits.

And then my colleagues, 22 years later, across the aisle--my Republican colleagues--said: Well, you know, we want a filibuster-free pathway to do tax cuts which will increase the deficit. And they brought in a new Parliamentarian in order to get a ruling that they could do the exact opposite of what 100 Senators had agreed to. So more and more payments diverted into interest.

We had that Big Beautiful Bill, as Trump calls it--or as many of us call it, the ``Big Ugly Betrayal Bill.'' You know the one I am talking about, the one where families lose and billionaires win that was passed 2 weeks ago. Well, this rescission bill is a continuation of that vision of families lose--particularly rural families, particularly all Americans, who lose out on the advantages of soft power that we exercise around the world--and billionaires win. But it is a direct attack, as well, on the immediate process of Democrats and Republicans working together on the Appropriations Committee in this really sacred responsibility of exercising the power of the purse.

Let's examine that word ``rescission.'' It is a fancy term. What does it really mean? A rescission is a repeal of a previous spending law.

A law was passed. It spent a certain amount of money on a certain program or on a certain Agency. And a repeal of it--that is all that fancy term means.

And so the spending process is one where those members of the spending committee come together--Democrats and Republicans together-- and they work out a bipartisan bill. And in that bill, last year, for fiscal year 2025, 11 out of 12 bills that came out of the spending committee, out of the Appropriations Committee, were unanimous or nearly unanimous. Where do you look for that type of bipartisan cooperation in Congress anymore? Well, last year, in the Appropriations Committee, 11 out of 12 bills passing unanimously or nearly unanimously out of committee. But what is happening right now is consideration of undoing that bipartisan work with a partisan repeal.

Now, just kind of stick with me here about a normal deal. You make an agreement with a friend: I will do this if you do that.

Well, everyone kind of understands that is a partnership. You have an agreement. But what if one person bails on that agreement later? It is a betrayal. But bailing on the agreement is exactly what this bill is.

Democrats and Republicans together made those spending decisions, and now they are being undone in a purely partisan fashion. They are breaking the deal. They are going back on the agreement. They are breaking their word. That is pretty shameful, and it is why my colleagues have been saying: Don't do it--because it is wrong, and it has a huge impact going forward. Once somebody you have made an agreement with breaks their end of the bargain, are you going to make a second bargain with that same individual, knowing that they bailed on the first deal? The answer is probably not.

So how will we come together and continue what we did a year ago--11 out of 12 bills passing out of the Senate committee in a hugely bipartisan fashion--if one side comes back and breaks the deal? I would invite my Republican colleagues: Come to the floor and explain to me how breaking the deal that you were participating in a year ago is an honorable thing to do, and explain to me how we are going to do future deals if you are breaking the existing deal.

Now, never in the history of the Senate has there been a partisan repeal--never. This is the first time. Why? Because we understood together that a deal is a deal.

That doesn't mean the President doesn't have influence. Hey, that was just about last year's bill. The President lays out a budget for the next year and has a huge influence. The President can veto the next set of spending bills or any one of them.

But once it is locked into law--passed by the House, passed by the Senate, signed by a President--to come back and undo that in this partisan fashion, you are breaking the honor code that has made bipartisan collaboration so successful. That is why you shouldn't do it. That is why you should vote no.

Now, this question of how this affects our Constitution is significant because, as I cited, the Constitution assigns the responsibility of the power of the purse to Congress in article I, section 9. But there have been occasions before when Presidents said: We would like to actually have that power of the purse. And the President who really pursued that aggressively was President Nixon, in the 1970s. President Nixon signed a law about how money would be spent but then decided not to spend it and withheld the money from being spent on housing, on education, on highways, on agriculture, and on pollution prevention programs.

Well, of course, this was appealed on a constitutional basis because the Constitution doesn't give the President the power to impound funds. Congress, by law--and by law signed by a President--had said: Here is what must be spent on these programs. And the President came along, and President Nixon said: I don't want to do it. I am not going to do it. Take me to court.

So they went to court. And it didn't actually make it to the Supreme Court until after President Nixon was out of office, after having resigned because of the Watergate scandal. But, in a way, this was really almost a bigger scandal. This was an attack on the Constitution.

So what did the Court say in Train v. New York? And the piece of spending that made it to the Supreme Court was related to spending on water treatment systems, of all things. And the Court said: You cannot do this. You cannot impound funds. It is unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns that responsibility to Congress.

Now, if the law had been written by Congress to say the President has flexibility between here and here, maybe a modest amount of flexibility may have survived the constitutional test. But the idea that the President could just simply ignore the law? No. The Court said no.

Then there was a second test. The second test had to do, in 1996, with Congress, where Republicans controlled the House and they controlled the Senate. They decided: You know how we will tackle the deficit now--now that we have destroyed the 1974 law that said the fast track can only be used for reducing the deficit and how we switched that and said it could be used for increasing the deficit--now we have destroyed that, and we have a new plan, and we will just simply say to the President: You can line-item veto.

Again, the court weighed in, and the court said: Hell no, no you can't, because the Constitution does not say you can delegate to the President powers the Constitution assigns to you.

It assigns it to us. That is our responsibility.

So, again, the core concept here is that bipartisan work in forging a spending bill should not be done by one partner bailing on the deal that was agreed to the previous year.

Now, there is a formal way to go about doing this in a bipartisan fashion, and that is, each spending bill, in

addition to saying what we will spend next year, can contain agreements on undoing the spending from the previous year because it is the same set of people saying: We assigned funds last year, but now we see they are not needed.

Maybe the President pointed out that they are not needed.

We will undo it, but we will undo it in a bipartisan fashion in the Appropriations Committee in that same sense of a partnership working together.

So rescissions, yes. We do them all the time. But they are done on a bipartisan basis in the spending committee, not in a partisan special bill, one-sided, basically bailing on the deal struck last year-- because this strategy is a recipe for disaster, destroying the bond of trust on a deal made with each side having its priorities in a bill and then one side bailing on it--because of that, it has never happened before, and it should never happen now.

Mr. President, let's step back from the immediate loyalty test the President of the United States has put forward. The President said: It is a loyalty test. I want you to do this because I want you to bend the knee to me.

That is not the responsibility of a Senator of the United States of America, to bend the knee to the executive branch. The Constitution gives us the responsibility to design how the executive branch functions. It gives us, the Senate, the responsibility to fund the programs and the services.

The way you lose government of, by, and for the people is to have an acquiescent legislature that stops doing its job and just says ``We will respond; we will just do what the President asks'' and a deferential court. Right now, we have both.

But we took an oath to the Constitution, each one of us, to honor that oath. Do not engage for the first time ever in creating this recipe for disaster of our bipartisan responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 499, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit

Additionally, the rule provides that House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.

Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substance of the bill today, I would like to clear up any confusion about any remarks I made in the Rules Committee last night.

Let me be crystal clear. I encourage all Members to support the rule before us today. My comments last night were lacking in context. Democrats made the argument throughout the hearing that this process is somehow another vote on H.R. 1. That is false.

The resolution today makes purely technical changes to protect the privilege of the reconciliation bill as it heads to the Senate.

It is not a redo or relitigation of any underlying policy issues in the bill.

Let me repeat: There are no policy decisions included in this engrossment correction.

That is what the Senate is working through, and I look forward to considering H.R. 1 when the bill returns from the other Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain on a positive, forward moving trajectory in delivering upon the American people's mandate from November. Just a few short weeks ago, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

This week, we are taking up a nearly $10-billion rescissions package, and soon we will be moving into the appropriations process.

Discretionary waste is about to be put through the congressional shredder.

Mr. Speaker, the American people demand that this happens. Now our colleagues across the aisle will leap to their feet and scream bloody murder about how the waste we are targeting simply doesn't exist and how we are laying siege to everything under the Sun.

Au contraire. We have the receipts to back everything up.

Here is just a small sampling of the mind-boggling discretionary waste that we will be slashing in foreign funding:

$158 million from the Lebanon peacekeeping mission which has been fraught with waste and abuse as evidenced by its abject failure to contain Hezbollah;

$3 million for an Iraqi Sesame Street;

$833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their clients and social networkers in Nepal; and

$500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda.

These examples barely skim the surface, Mr. Speaker, and it is really no wonder why Americans are outraged that their tax dollars are being squandered.

It is the American people's money. A single dollar of taxpayer money wasted is $1 too many in our view.

Then there is NPR. I honestly don't even know where to begin on that one. Even if someone were to accept the premise that we need to finance a public radio outlet, then certainly we can all agree that it simply cannot be NPR any longer. NPR's own CEO testified before Congress that she has never seen any political bias at NPR. I don't know what reality she is living in, but it clearly isn't this one.

Here is the kicker: NPR does harbor political bias. It took a $1.9 million grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints.

There is the proof, and it is a concrete example that NPR's CEO was giving false testimony to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, you either understand that you are biased and need help, apparently in the form of taxpayer grants, or you haven't witnessed any bias. You can't have it both ways.

Then there is PBS. Again, I honestly don't know where to begin. On top of the concrete, statistically proven bias against conservatives, Republicans, and the Trump administration, this is the 21st century. We have Sesame Street now streaming on private services so the taxpayers are now subsidizing for-profit companies. We have seen private celebrities like Ms. Rachel who are engaging in crossover with Sesame Street which, again, leveraged taxpayer dollars to concentrate wealth to private individuals.

It is clear that we must slash this tranche of wasteful spending and continue down a path to fully restore fiscal sanity in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, I need to set the facts straight. Our colleagues keep flip-flopping on their characterization of cuts to wasteful spending and our campaign to get our fiscal house in order.

At one moment our spending cuts are so monumental and draconian that the Earth is going to stand still and people are going to die, as they told us in the Rules Committee. Literally seconds after they said that yesterday, not even minutes later, they tell us that the spending cut is inconsequential, that it is a rounding error, and that it is a drop in the bucket.

Mr. Speaker, which is it?

It has to be one or the other.

The fact that our colleagues keep twisting themselves in knots is simply evidence that they are doing everything in their power to hide the facts about this vote.

At one minute, this $10 billion return on taxpayer dollars is not worth Congress' time. At another minute, they will tell us that these are draconian cuts that they will oppose with every ounce of strength in their bodies.

Give me a break.

Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of profligate spending from Democrats. Again, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt. It is time to end that spending.

We are ending it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here today, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers. We can cut spending in little chunks and in big chunks.

In response to Mr. McGovern's obvious assertions, Members always have a choice to vote up or down on legislation, be it a rule, authorization, or appropriation.

The plain text of the rule provides for consideration of this rescissions package and advances H.R. 1 by adopting the engrossment resolution.

Since Democrats seem to have selective memory, let me remind them, and Americans, that during the 117th Congress, very recently, House Democrats deemed 29 items total. Also included in that number is the engrossment correction resolution they deemed in a rule for the American Rescue Plan Act, which included section and paragraph strikes.

In contrast, Republicans in the 118th Congress deemed only two measures. We understand that this is a tool of the majority that should be used only when necessary.

We all know the Democrats opposed H.R. 1. They opposed it weeks ago, and they opposed the engrossment resolution last night on the basis that it advances H.R. 1.

Mr. McGovern is tying himself in knots here. In a ``Dear Colleague'' he circulated, he characterized this rule as repassing H.R. 1, just before he went on to complain that H.R. 1's engrossment is not getting its own vote.

Nothing was added to H.R. 1. Let me repeat, nothing was added to H.R. 1. Every change was technical or simply removed provisions to make sure this big, beautiful bill has its day in the Senate.

Let's remind the American people what the Democrats voted against in H.R. 1. Democrats went on record against tax cuts for families, against tax relief for tips, against tax relief for senior citizens. They went on record against protecting Medicaid by advocating for the enrollment of 1.4 million illegal aliens. They went on record against increasing the quality of life funds for our Nation's military families.

We have a rule before us to protect H.R. 1's process in the Senate and restore fiscal sanity to our Nation, and the American people need and want us to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This rescissions package does reduce certain global health accounts by hundreds of millions. Keep in mind that $10 billion has been appropriated for this work in these accounts, making this rescission exact and very targeted.

The Trump administration has communicated it will not reduce funds for treatment in PEPFAR, rather it eliminates programs antithetical to American interests and ones that worsen the lives of women and children. Enacting this rescission will get this funding stream back to its core mission by refocusing it on protecting health and supporting life-sustaining treatment.

What we don't need is the wasteful spending priorities of President Biden now exposed by the Trump administration: $500,000 for a Lesbian Justice Foundation in Canada; $9.3 million to the John Snow Research and Training Institute to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis; $800,000 for transgender people, sex workers and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal; $7.4 million for a One Health Workforce project whose curriculum includes teaching practitioners about environmental racism and the importance of DEI.

This spending, guised under the terms ``equity, reproductive health, and family planning,'' stray far from the mission of sustaining life and serve no benefit to the populations they are intended to help.

These are wasteful programs financed by the American taxpayer, funded by deficit spending; but no longer. This money is better off returned to the Treasury, and PEPFAR's integrity is now being restored.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 mandates that all public broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs. There is a myriad of statistical studies that prove they are not.

NPR banned coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming it was a mere diversion. PBS made 162 references to ``far right'' versus only 6 references to ``far left.'' Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact that it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints last year.

The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional prerogatives here to enforce the law. That starts with this rescission of funding.

PBS and NPR will continue to pivot their response to this cut back and forth, as they have for some time. They tell us that their taxpayer-funded gift is just a drop in the bucket, not worth our attention. Nothing to see here. Yet, when we want to hold them accountable, it is the end of the world.

They will weaponize their content against congressional Republicans. They will hire lobbyists. They will buy ads. In fact, they have. They can continue to do that, but thankfully, it won't be subsidized by the taxpayer any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) explained very well why we are not voting to increase the deficit by $3 trillion. We all know that that is coming from the fact that we are extending tax cuts that were passed in 2017.

By the way, if we go back and look at the Record at all the scare tactics and all the Armageddon comments that were made when we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, we heard the same things. None of those things happened. In fact, we had a booming economy. I don't think the same scare tactics are going to work again.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. We have set up lots of programs to save the lives of people across this country and across the world, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here is not going to cause people to be dying if the money is spent the way Congress intends for it to be spent.

Now, as my Democrat colleagues are well aware, reconciliation bills are different from other types of legislation and are prohibited from including provisions deemed as extraneous in the Senate.

What we are doing here in terms of the engrossment resolution for H.R. 1 is we are striking a few provisions in the bill that Senate Parliamentarians concluded would jeopardize the privileged status of the bill in the Senate.

The House is taking all necessary steps to enable the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to be considered expeditiously in the Senate and sent to President Trump's desk under the reconciliation process, which is what this engrossment resolution does.

Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the ranking member and my Democrat colleagues that when they were last in the majority, they also utilized an engrossment resolution to strike extraneous provisions from their American Rescue Plan in 2021.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with the reconciliation bill and with the rescission bill is, we are doing everything we can to get our country back in fiscal shape. That is more important to the people in this world than any individual program is. It is important that the United States remain the greatest country in the world and that we reduce our debt and deficit. That is the focus of Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear: The American people gave Republicans a mandate to restore fiscal sanity. This rescissions package is part of achieving that end.

Republicans are cleaning up the ruin that the Biden-Harris administration left this country in. We are taking a fiscal scalpel to waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 580, providing for consideration of four measures: H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees, provides one motion to recommit, and makes one amendment in order.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of S. 1582, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, also known as the GENIUS Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 330 amendments in order.

Finally, the rule provides for same-day consideration of a measure related to rescissions this week.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on four pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1919 serves as a critical safeguard against the financial power and erosion of individual privacy in the United States, as it would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, CBDC, or using it to conduct monetary policy without explicit authorization from Congress.

I would like to pose a fundamental question to my colleagues. Should the Federal Government have the power to monitor, control, or restrict how Americans use their own hard-earned money? Further, should the Federal Government be allowed to make such sweeping decisions behind closed doors without input from the public or their elected representatives?

At its core, this bill is about ensuring the preservation of personal financial freedom. The American people have a basic right to financial privacy. They have the right to spend, save, and manage their money free from surveillance or interference.

A CBDC would explicitly threaten that right by giving the Federal Government unprecedented insight into individual transactions and the potential ability to control or limit access to personal funds.

H.R. 1919 is about one thing: stopping the government from gaining unchecked power over how Americans

conduct their financial lives. It ensures that if any form of digital currency is ever created by the Federal Reserve, it must be debated, authorized, and legislated by Congress instead of unilaterally developed by unelected bureaucrats operating behind closed doors.

The potential consequences are too significant to permit unchecked bureaucratic experimentation with tools that could fundamentally redefine the relationship between individuals and their government without clear oversight risks undermining longstanding economic principles.

Now is the time for Congress to assert its role and ensure that any future developments uphold the values of transparency, individual rights, and a market-driven economy.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, otherwise known as the CLARITY Act. H.R. 3633 delivers a foundational framework that has been missing for far too long, which is clear, consistent rules for digital assets and the innovators building the future of finance.

For years, American entrepreneurs and developers in the digital asset space have been forced to navigate a regulatory maze marked by conflicting guidance, shifting definitions, and enforcement actions in place of actual rules. These inconsistent conditions have stifled domestic innovation, discouraged responsible market participation, and driven capital and talent to more favorable jurisdictions abroad.

H.R. 3633 addresses these issues directly by clarifying the legal status of digital assets and establishing well-defined regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC, creating a more predictable landscape for market participants while preserving critical investor protections and maintaining the integrity of U.S. financial markets.

This legislation reasserts the role of Congress in setting national policy for emerging financial technologies. It ensures that decisions with far-reaching economic implications are not made through regulatory overreach but through transparent and deliberative processes.

H.R. 3633 is not only sound regulatory policy but also essential economic policy. It will help preserve the United States' leadership in financial innovation, support the growth of compliant digital asset markets, and provide much-needed certainty to investors, developers, and regulators alike.

In an increasingly competitive global financial landscape, this legislation positions the United States to lead with clarity, credibility, and confidence.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of S. 1582, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, otherwise known as the GENIUS Act.

This is not just a stablecoin bill. This is a strategic step toward modernizing the U.S. financial infrastructure for the digital age while protecting the interests of consumers, markets, and the Nation.

S. 1582 provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for the issuance and oversight of payment stablecoins in the United States. It is designed to support responsible innovation, ensure consumer protection, and preserve the role of the U.S. dollar in an increasingly digitized global financial system.

Stablecoins have become an essential component of the digital asset economy, as they offer faster, lower-cost transactions and expand access to financial services. In the absence of a clear Federal framework, however, stablecoin development has outpaced regulation, leaving investors without consistent protections and businesses without clear rules of the road.

This legislation changes that by providing clear, enforceable standards for payment stablecoin issuers, creating practical regulatory pathways through both State and Federal charters and setting strong reserve and disclosure requirements to ensure these assets remain secure and trustworthy.

Critically, this bill prohibits the issuance of algorithmic stablecoins lacking sufficient collateral, guarding against destabilizing risks that could ripple through the broader financial system. Also reinforcing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, this bill ensures that dollar-backed stablecoins are subject to prudent oversight and sound risk management.

At a time when other nations are rapidly moving to define the future of digital finance, S. 1582 ensures the United States takes a prompt and necessary step forward with clarity, credibility, and confidence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026.

H.R. 4016 provides the critical funding necessary to ensure the readiness, modernization, and global strength of the United States Armed Forces. This bill reflects Congress' enduring commitment to our national defense and to the brave men and women who dutifully and selflessly serve this country with distinction.

At a time of rising global threats from strategic competitors, like China and Russia, to unstable regimes and nonstate actors, America must remain prepared and ready. Deterrence requires strength, and strength requires sustained investment, which is exactly what this legislation delivers.

This bill funds operations, maintenance, personnel, and procurement across all branches of the military, ensuring that our servicemembers have the tools, training, and resources they need to succeed in every domain, including land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace. It provides for next-generation systems and emerging technologies, strengthens our nuclear deterrent, and supports investments in cyber capabilities to defend against 21st century threats.

Importantly, this legislation continues bipartisan efforts to improve military quality of life, including robust funding for servicemember pay increases, housing improvements, and family support programs, believing that those who sacrifice to defend this country should never have to sacrifice dignity or stability at home.

H.R. 4016 reflects a deep commitment to national security, strategic deterrence, and support for those who serve. It targets stability, honors peace through strength, and honors our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, reinforcing global stability, and ensuring that the United States remains ready to respond to emerging threats with confidence,capability, and conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation, urge passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record, supporters of cryptocurrency exercised their First Amendment right last election and contributed to many candidates.

In fact, those supporters spent over $50 million in support of Democrat candidates. Supporters of cryptocurrency are not just Republicans or Democrats. These are Americans who are very eager to see us pass the most important legislation for the cryptocurrency industry in history this week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), our Rules Committee chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are referring to a tactic Democrats employed, yet again, to try to take control of the House of Representatives through the Rules Committee. They did so because they are desperate to stop us from passing the most important cryptocurrency legislation in the history of our country and because they are, for whatever reason, desperate to stop us from bringing forward our legislation that funds our brave military.

The Republican majority is not going to hand the keys to the House of Representatives to a caucus that, on a daily basis, impugns and denigrates the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump.

To my friends watching at home who support bitcoin and cryptocurrency: Make no mistake. Members of Congress who vote against the rule today are voting against the most important legislation for the cryptocurrency industry in history.

I beseech my colleagues who appreciate, support, and invest in cryptocurrency to study today's vote. Do not let those who vote against us today come around during election time to ask for support as they claim to fight for this incredible industry. Judge them by their vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I join the millions of Americans who want accountability for anyone who committed crimes with Jeffrey Epstein. But I ask you: Can you really trust the same radical leftists who presided over one of the greatest scandals in American history, a coup in Joe Biden's White House in which unelected staff actively sought the destruction of our country?

Can you really trust the same radial leftists who sought to segregate those of us who opted to make medical decisions for ourselves during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Can you really trust the same radical leftists who have spent the last decade trying and failing, trying and failing, and trying and failing to tear down President Trump, one of the greatest Presidents in American history?

Can you really trust those same people, who are trying to stop us from passing the most important cryptocurrency legislation in history and appropriations to fund our brave military today?

A vote against today's rule is a vote against cryptocurrency and our Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore) to speak to the most important cryptocurrency legislation in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has the ability to advance four pieces of legislation under this rule:

H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, CBDC, that undermines Americans' rights to financial privacy.

H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act, establishes clear, functional requirements for digital asset market participants, prioritizing consumer protection while fostering innovation.

S. 1582, the GENIUS Act provides a clear regulatory framework for the issuance of payment stablecoins in the U.S.

H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026, provides critical resources to strengthen military readiness, support servicemembers and their families, invest in next-generation defense capabilities, and ensure that the United States can meet global threats with confidence and resolve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.